Welcome to the best KC Chiefs site on the internet. You can view any post as a visitor, but you are required to register before you can post. Click the register link above, it only takes 30 seconds to start chatting with Chiefs fans from all over the world! Enjoy your stay!

The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

0

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.

The Founding Fathers were pious men and started this country with good Christian values in mind.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge[Judicial branch], the LORD is our lawgiver[Legislative branch],
the LORD is our king[Executive branch];
He will save us.”

Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.
“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

Where they had seen other religions forced upon the people, they wanted to ensure that this country would not take part in that.

I don't see how anyone can argue that "Freedom of reliogion" and "separation of church and state" can be misinterpreted.

Yes, they had Christian morals. But they didn't make laws that would favor those beliefs over those of another. And they set-up the system so that that would never happen.

Actually Chief31 if you were to look back at their quotes in context it wasn't an issue of Christianity vs. other religions (or atheism, agnostics, etc.) but rather the persecution of their time and that they were concerned with was between denominations (ie. Catholic vs. Protestant)...As such it is hard to really use those quotes to argue how they would've responded to these situations. It clearly wasn't an issue in their day.

I am a Christian, however I agree with Chief31's comment earlier that the Federal Government should not be involved with most of these issues. (Gay Marriage, etc)...as we are a Republic of Democratic states (Not a straight Democracy)...what this is supposed to mean is that we have a limited Federal Government that simply unites the more powerful Independent State Governments.

I personally do believe that Abortion is a more difficult and complex issue. The argument really comes down to whether or not the baby inside the mom is a human life. If it is, as most Pro-life advocates would argue, then abortion is murder. As it is currently deemed legal, then the justice system has currently decided that baby isn't a life...unless of course someone kills a pregnant women, then they go on trial for double murder. How ironic that the legal system contradicts itself. I'm not going to change anything in our system by continuing this argument. At the end of the day, I believe that it is murder, and as such I would argue it can be a legal and political issue. However most of these other 'moral' issues are things that don't hurt others, and as such you are right, they should be left for God to judge at the end.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 49ers own my heart, but the Chiefs will always hold a better than neutral spot for giving my favorite player a place to leave with grace...
Resident Comedian/Statistician/Researcher/Diplomat

Actually Chief31 if you were to look back at their quotes in context it wasn't an issue of Christianity vs. other religions (or atheism, agnostics, etc.) but rather the persecution of their time and that they were concerned with was between denominations (ie. Catholic vs. Protestant)...As such it is hard to really use those quotes to argue how they would've responded to these situations. It clearly wasn't an issue in their day.

And instead of making it to where their beliefs were to be installed into the government, they went out of their way to to ensure that the government would not take sides in matters of religious issues.

The quote is freedom of religion, not freedom of Christian religion. It's not like there were no other religions here.

They created the system to allow each indiviual to choose. And they specifically included religion. Just as they didn't set it up for everything to favor them as kings, they didn't set it up for their religions to be kings.

And instead of making it to where their beliefs were to be installed into the government, they went out of their way to to ensure that the government would not take sides in matters of religious issues.

The quote is freedom of religion, not freedom of Christian religion. It's not like there were no other religions here.

They created the system to allow each indiviual to choose. And they specifically included religion. Just as they didn't set it up for everything to favor them as kings, they didn't set it up for their religions to be kings.

Your misunderstanding me brother. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be freedom of religion. I'm saying that the quotes from their time period aren't in the complete context of today's cultural diversity.

I do think that most of these issues should be completely state issues, and I simply stated that the arguments on the abortion issue are a bit more complex.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 49ers own my heart, but the Chiefs will always hold a better than neutral spot for giving my favorite player a place to leave with grace...
Resident Comedian/Statistician/Researcher/Diplomat

Actually Chief31 if you were to look back at their quotes in context it wasn't an issue of Christianity vs. other religions (or atheism, agnostics, etc.) but rather the persecution of their time and that they were concerned with was between denominations (ie. Catholic vs. Protestant)...As such it is hard to really use those quotes to argue how they would've responded to these situations. It clearly wasn't an issue in their day.

I am a Christian, however I agree with Chief31's comment earlier that the Federal Government should not be involved with most of these issues. (Gay Marriage, etc)...as we are a Republic of Democratic states (Not a straight Democracy)...what this is supposed to mean is that we have a limited Federal Government that simply unites the more powerful Independent State Governments.

I personally do believe that Abortion is a more difficult and complex issue. The argument really comes down to whether or not the baby inside the mom is a human life. If it is, as most Pro-life advocates would argue, then abortion is murder. As it is currently deemed legal, then the justice system has currently decided that baby isn't a life...unless of course someone kills a pregnant women, then they go on trial for double murder. How ironic that the legal system contradicts itself. I'm not going to change anything in our system by continuing this argument. At the end of the day, I believe that it is murder, and as such I would argue it can be a legal and political issue. However most of these other 'moral' issues are things that don't hurt others, and as such you are right, they should be left for God to judge at the end.